Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the delay in the Council’s action to restore land to an adopted highway. We do not consider an investigation will lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains for himself and his neighbours. He says the Council failed to act on a land grab by another neighbour which has restricted access to the complainant’s homes.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complains about the Council’s delay in acting on his report that a neighbour had erected a fence on an adopted highway which provides access to his and his neighbour’s homes.
6. The Council has removed the neighbour’s fence and installed a new one which Mr X accepts is mostly in the correct position. However, he says the original fence footings have been left in situ and the new fence wraps around a tree which the neighbour planted on the boundary.
7. The Council confirms highway officers have visited the site. It is satisfied the highway is in a reasonable condition with no signs of defects which require intervention. It also says the tree has been left as a compromise with the neighbour and in recognition of the limited nature of the encroachment onto the highway.
8. I understand Mr X and his neighbours are dissatisfied with the Council’s actions. They want the Council to:
• remove the tree
• return the entire new fence to the boundary
• remove the fixings left from the previous fence; and
• apologise for treating them poorly and failing to handle matters correctly.
9. The Council acknowledges the matter has been ongoing for some years. However, it says officers have communicated with Mr X during this time, making several telephone calls and visiting the site. It has built a new fence and explained its decision for not taking further action.
10. The Ombudsman cannot require the Council to remove the tree, move the fence or remove metal fixings. The Council has explained the reasons for allowing the tree to remain. And that officers are satisfied with the condition of the highway. These are decisions it is entitled to make.
11. We do not consider it a good use of public funds to investigate purely to obtain an apology, which is all we can require in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we cannot achieve most of the outcomes the complainants are seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman